Happy days for liberals.
Kill em after they are out of the gate. It was only a matter of time.

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued. </span>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/health...xperts-say.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html)

The article, http://go.telegraph.co.uk/?id=296X467&ur...full.pdf%2Bhtml (http://go.telegraph.co.uk/?id=296X467&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjme.bmj.com%2Fcontent%2Fearly%2F2 012%2F02%2F22%2Fmedethics-2011-100411.full.pdf%2Bhtml) published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford. Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University.

Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School – where Prof Savulescu is also a director – titled 'What is the problem with euthanasia?'

He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the city’s Monash University. Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002.

Defending the decision to publish http://go.telegraph.co.uk/?id=296X467&ur...rth-abortion%2F (http://go.telegraph.co.uk/?id=296X467&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.bmj.com%2Fmedical-ethics%2F2012%2F02%2F28%2Fliberals-are-disgusting-in-defence-of-the-publication-of-after-birth-abortion%2F) in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”.

What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interests”.

While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”

He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal.

Dr Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary's University College, said: "If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say 'it's doesn't matter, she can get another one,' is that what we want to happen?

"What these young colleagues are spelling out is what we would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new."

Referring to the term "after-birth abortion", Dr Stammers added: "This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide."

cushioncrawler

03-01-2012, 07:30 PM

One of the most important issues around.
I agree that parents shood be able to hav babys put down.
In the oldenday u left babys in the snow to die.
Nowadays i think they stop giving them food and liquids -- takes a long time to die.
This iz one issue where i think the State shoodnt pay to support broken children and broken kids. The mums and dads that want to keep them shood pay full cost.
mac.

Sev

03-01-2012, 07:57 PM

Feed em to the dingo's aye Mac???

cushioncrawler

03-01-2012, 11:12 PM

Yes. Praps someone kan do the math to see how many generations it would take to reech a stage where most babys were horribly deformed in body or mind if allowed to be born and if allowed to remain alive.
mac.

Explain the moral difference, in your own thoughts, between a partial birth abortion and killing the baby an hour later.

Qtec

03-02-2012, 03:29 AM

I didn't say I was for or against it. I just said that its an opinion and everyone has one.

Q...ie, NO BIG DEAL.

LWW

03-02-2012, 05:44 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I didn't say I was for or against it. I just said that its an opinion and everyone has one.

Q...ie, NO BIG DEAL. </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>STEE - RIKE ONE!</span>

I didn't ask if you were for or against it.

I asked for your opinion on the difference.

You soiled yourself.

Nothing new.

cushioncrawler

03-02-2012, 06:44 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...Explain the moral difference, in your own thoughts, between a partial birth abortion and killing the baby an hour later.</div></div>They are both good. Not aborting/killing are both bad.
mac.
How many generations????

LWW

03-02-2012, 03:19 PM

Bump for the Snoop ...

Explain the moral difference, in your own thoughts, between a partial birth abortion and killing the baby an hour later.

Soflasnapper

03-02-2012, 05:27 PM

As there is no such procedure in obstetrics as partial birth abortion, it's hard to compare it to anything.

llotter

03-02-2012, 06:49 PM

As I read the title of this thread, I thought 'bravo', that's what conservatives have been saying since the beginning. You can imagine how surprised I was see that the gist of it is, 'well, we kill babies in the womb so, gee, what's the diff, we should be killing babies outside the womb...say up to five years old'.

Just goes to show that if God is dead, anything is permissible.

Soflasnapper

03-02-2012, 07:42 PM

Just goes to show that if God is dead, anything is permissible.

Amen, I agree with that! Absent understanding there is a God, and absent knowledge of what He wants, and absent agreement to obey God's commandments, humanity is a sick collection of freaks. They are even WITH those things being true, and with people devoutly following the dictates of religion, because some still do not agree, and often, the religions themselves are comprised of a sick collection of freaks. (Man IS in a fallen condition, after all!)

However, the gist of what THESE particular sick collection of freaks is saying is a moral abomination, and a disgrace, even if it somewhat comports with the traditional teachings of Judaism, that a 'child' does not become a 'human' until passing the age of 9 months from birth. That wasn't right, either, but stretching the 9 months to 5 years is way wrong.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As there is no such procedure in obstetrics as partial birth abortion, it's hard to compare it to anything. </div></div>

No it isn't ... but I can understand your reluctance to defend a leftist issue that would have made Josef Mengele recoil in horror.

Explain the moral difference, in your own thoughts, between a partial birth abortion and killing the baby an hour later. </div></div>

Bump for the Snoop.

LWW

03-03-2012, 04:08 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As I read the title of this thread, I thought 'bravo', that's what conservatives have been saying since the beginning. You can imagine how surprised I was see that the gist of it is, 'well, we kill babies in the womb so, gee, what's the diff, we should be killing babies outside the womb...say up to five years old'.

Just goes to show that if God is dead, anything is permissible. </div></div>

I think this explains the rash of young women who give birth in private and then dump the baby in the trash.

Twelve years of public education teaching them that it isn't human seems to strip the humanity away from the student as well.

Sev

03-03-2012, 09:15 AM

Just think.
One day it will be legal to offhandedly kill a baby that is outside the womb with no consequences.
Yet if you use lethal force to defend your life you may both end up in jail and face civil law suits for wrongful death.

There is just something very very wrong here.

Soflasnapper

03-03-2012, 10:01 AM

The alternatives are worse than intact dilation extraction, because guess what they don't feature: keeping the fetus intact. As in, they would then chop the fetus into small pieces in utero before extraction, likely after it was painfully killed with saline poisoning.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to a BBC report about the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, "government lawyers and others who favour the ban, have said there are alternative and more widely used procedures that are still legal - which involves dismembering the fetus in the uterus."[21] An article in Harper's magazine stated that, "Defending the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban... requires arguing to judges that pulling a fetus from a woman's body in dismembered pieces is legal, medically acceptable, and safe; but that pulling a fetus out intact, so that if the woman wishes the fetus can be wrapped in a blanket and handed to her, is appropriately punishable by a fine, or up to two years' imprisonment, or both."[11] The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that intact D&X remains legal as long as there is first an "injection that kills the fetus."[1] </div></div>

DiabloViejo

03-03-2012, 01:51 PM

<span style="color: #FF0000">"Well well well.

Happy days for liberals.
Kill em after they are out of the gate. It was only a matter of time."</span>

Sure, every single liberal is rejoicing over this because we are all baby killing cannibals and love nothing more than slaughtering helpless children.

For the record I think any decent person regardless of political affiliation would find the conclusions of the report to be repugnant, morally reprehensible and down right evil. Of course that doesn't keep you from lowering yourself to smearing an entire class of people with your idiotic assumptions. Is that part of the training you receive at right wing junta HQ?

Happy days for liberals.
Kill em after they are out of the gate. It was only a matter of time."</span>

Sure, every single liberal is rejoicing over this because we are all baby killing cannibals and love nothing more than slaughtering helpless children.

For the record I think any decent person regardless of political affiliation would find the conclusions of the report to be repugnant, morally reprehensible and down right evil. Of course that doesn't keep you from lowering yourself to smearing an entire class of people with your idiotic assumptions. Is that part of the training you receive at right wing junta HQ?

</div></div>

I was not aware liberal was an actual class.
Generally classless. But a class unto themselves?? I think not.

DiabloViejo

03-03-2012, 08:29 PM

Well think again! Here, let me help you on your way towards more picturesque speech and greater vocabulary skills. --

class (kls)
n.

1.<span style="color: #FF0000"> A set, collection, group, or configuration containing members regarded as having certain attributes or traits in common; a kind or category.</span>

2. A division based on quality, rank, or grade, as:
a. A grade of mail: a package sent third class.
b. A quality of accommodation on public transport: tourist class.

3.a. A social stratum whose members share certain economic, social, or cultural characteristics: the lower-income classes.
b. Social rank or caste, especially high rank.
c. Informal Elegance of style, taste, and manner: an actor with class.

4. A level of academic development, as in an elementary or secondary school.

5.a. A group of students who are taught together because they have roughly the same level of academic development.
b. A group of students or alumni who have the same year of graduation.
c. A group of students who meet at a regularly scheduled time to study the same subject.
d. The period during which such a group meets: had to stay after class.
6. Biology A taxonomic category ranking below a phylum or division and above an order. See Table at taxonomy.
7. Statistics An interval in a frequency distribution.
8. Linguistics A group of words belonging to the same grammatical category that share a particular set of morphological properties, such as a set of inflections.
tr.v. classed, class·ing, class·es

To arrange, group, or rate according to qualities or characteristics; assign to a class; classify.

[French classe, from Latin classis, class of citizens; see kel-2 in Indo-European roots.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Sev

03-03-2012, 09:17 PM

I stand corrected.

That being the case. Declaring them the entitlement class would not be in error then.